Is it not so that the longer we wait to ban nuclear weapons the
more dangerous becomes the threat of nuclear weapons use? The danger we know
increases through appropriation by terrorist groups and through proliferation,
but even more so through inaction. It is clear that the forces working in the
world are not going to wait for us or be stalled as their speed is increasing
every day. We did not plan or anticipate the withdrawal of Syrian troops from
Lebanon or the movements towards democracy in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine.
These events are not our accomplishments but the results of movements, subtle
and unseen, that enter the equation without our notice or better without our
being fully conscious of their existence.

If we assume a globalizing and uniting movement (with or without
our conscious and willing participation), we immediately see the examples. The
European Union, WTO, peacekeeping, globalization, democratization, internet are
positive examples. Terrorism, climate change and disasters are the negative
examples of an unifying world.

We can also observe it from the point of view of the evolution of
violence. We started with killing in hunting and fighting for survival and
evolved to fight for domination. In the next stage we evolved to the strategy of
competition. We note that the previous stages did not disappear with the
movement to the next level or stage. We are now at a point of a true paradigm
shift as Jasgit has been writing. The next step in the evolution of violence is
into the stage of cooperation where for the first time the success of one side
is no loss for the other side. Cooperation or collaboration is a strategy and
method where both sides win and create more than the sum of the parts.

Cooperation in
the EU has led to the European Army.[1]
It is not unimaginable that the European Army will evolve to include even the
cooperation of Russia and the countries around the Mediterranean sea. An
effective African Army is in the process of being organized. India and China are
making attempts to collaborate in trade issues, etc. The world is uniting
through trade, economic unification and making war obsolete.

We can hasten and enforce this movement of worldwide unification
by joining that movement in the field of defense and security. The rational and
inevitable outcome in the evolution of violence is the end of violence in so
many of its forms. The physical symbol of the global end of violence will be a
World (Peace) Army.

Very few people
in the world believe a World (Peace) Army is even a remote possibility. But when
we look closely, it is a rational outcome. In our realm of elimination of
nuclear weapons and WMD it is a plausible solution. Without a World Army to
control them might be a very long shot. We all agree that a further development
of nuclear weapons is not sensible nor practical, but our arguments lack
strength. [2]
A World Army is the most powerful signal and instrument to show that we the
world is totally serious about the end of use of violence against human beings.
So even when we think that a World Army does not belong to the world of
possibilities, it carries a merit that should force us to take the option
seriously. If we agree that it is a practical solution to the threat of nuclear
weapons and WMD, we have to enquire in possible scenarios that can bring it
about.

One of the factors that will hasten the process is the emerging
individual. The USA became the leader of the world because the Americans are
more individualistic than any other people. This process of individualizing is
accelerated through the internet. As the previous century was one of the common
man, this century will be the century of the (empowered) individual. In society
we are seeing that power is diversifying, moving from centralized points to
uncentralized power. The power now invested and in the hands of governments,
companies will gradually move to the individual, under pressure of that same
individual. We see the emergence of ‘socially responsible and sustainable’
entrepreneurship, where companies have to make public their policies and
intentions with respect to the environment, human rights, health and wellbeing.
A comprehensive standardization will make comparisons and gradation possible.
The same can be extended to ‘socially responsible and sustainable’ politics,
where politicians and parties can be graded and indexed by result and
accomplishment (which will also be a counterforce to short-term politics).
Public pressure can be a constructive mechanism to improve the performance of
companies and governments.

For the public to take up the cause of World Peace it needs a
guiding light and a representation. If we look at the polls of who we trust
Science comes out at the top. Science represents truthfulness and sincerity of
purpose. And is this not what we need: truthfulness and sincerity in politics?
Is not one of the causes of the present problem of terrorism the perceived lack
of sincerity in the victims? We are still using power politics to further our
cause, but this strategy is counter productive as it can only provoke the
opposing party. What provocation can result in is shown in Robert McNamara’s
article where Fidel Castro was prepared to act resulting in the sure total
destruction of his island.

A simple and effective strategy is based on sincerity as
sincerity cannot provoke, nor can it be opposed. It takes away one of the causes
of terrorism and it will reinforce trust in our societies. And trust we need for
limitless economic growth.

And then we
come to the questions. Is WAAS not the right institute to promote the cause of
World Peace? Is WAAS prepared to be the pioneer, the instrument to present a
strategy of sincerity and truthfulness to the World Powers?

[1]Not
many people might be aware that the Dutch do not have a national army
anymore. Our army has virtually merged with the German army, said Rob de
Wijk in New Delhi.

[2]
Especially now that the USA is not favoring the inclusion of other countries
in the UN Security Council, it is actually giving those countries incentives
to develop more power to force the issue in their favor at a later stage.